Must everything be combat applicable??

[DeLamar.J]

Traditional martial arts were not so much about fighting as some of the other more modern styles are. Some people today are just looking for combat effectiveness only, not discipline, values, and a good attitude. Those are the things that traditional training gives you, people who just want to learn how to hurt people frown on the more traditional type of training because there are things done to build character and discipline, that are not combat applicable, so they feel those things are a waste of time. That was one of the methods instructors used to weed out the ones who would abuse there skill, because they wont make it through the discipline and character tests, therefor showing the possibllity that they might abuse there skill because of lack of patience to learn a kata, getting it just right, saying yes sir, bowing before stepping on the mat, all those little things. They will get flustered and all pissy, if they get bent out of shape during that, how will they react in a bad situation that tests there fuse when they are capable of severely hurting another person?? Just because something is not combat applicable does not make it useless, any comments?

 

[Drag'n]

I really agree with what you're saying.Although I would say that most traditional arts were originaly intended to be combat efective, but after many generations of peace the focus was shifted toward self development.
Unfortunately alot of people dont realise this and think they are practising realistic fighting techniques.
I think the rise of modern combat systems was inevitable and necessary due to the lack of realism in alot of the traditional arts.
Personally I try to keep a balance of both combat effectiveness and self development.I think those who practise MA simply for the purpose of learning how to fight are missing out on the true value of training.And instructors who teach dangerous combative techniques to their students without the essential character development of traditional Budo, should be prepared to take responsibility if one of their students was to use their skills in an irresponsible mannor.
At the same time I dont see the point in practising fighting techniques that aren't fighting effective.I'm thankfull for the rise of MMA, as I think it has exposed alot of the weaknesses in many MA's and brought back some much needed reality into the picture.
Unfortunately alot of dojos I've seen seem to go one way or the other.Either very traditional and lacking in effectiveness, or totally combat oriented with no spiritual depth.Its sad that many young people here in Japan are more attracted to the fighting sport dojos and forgeting the wisdom of Bushido.
One without the other is incomplete.
So I guess my answer to your question is yes and no.Fighting techniques need to be effective and practised how they are intended to be used.But not everything you do in your training has to be for the purpose of fighting.

 

[ppko]

Traditional martial arts were not so much about fighting as some of the other more modern styles are. Some people today are just looking for combat effectiveness only, not discipline, values, and a good attitude. Those are the things that traditional training gives you, people who just want to learn how to hurt people frown on the more traditional type of training because there are things done to build character and discipline, that are not combat applicable, so they feel those things are a waste of time. That was one of the methods instructors used to weed out the ones who would abuse there skill, because they wont make it through the discipline and character tests, therefor showing the possibllity that they might abuse there skill because of lack of patience to learn a kata, getting it just right, saying yes sir, bowing before stepping on the mat, all those little things. They will get flustered and all pissy, if they get bent out of shape during that, how will they react in a bad situation that tests there fuse when they are capable of severely hurting another person?? Just because something is not combat applicable does not make it useless, any comments?

I would have to agree with you to a certain extent, I do believe hat traditional Martial Arts were mostly combat driven. Not only were the Martial Arts very disciplened every day life was disciplined in the East. They new that eventually they would get the meaning of kata in there training, and also they knew they were doing everything for a reason. I think that if we wish to get out of this "I want it now attitude" than we as parents need to start with our children, and make discipline a everyday part of life.

 

[Paul Genge]

I have to wonder if teaching martial arts to a person that wants better ways of hurting other people is the most healthy thing for them, without first helping them with their personality. The danger seems to be the spread of martial arts that advocate developing aggression to deal with conflict.

On the face of it this might seem a useful skill to develop. We see people on the TV and unfortunately on the street who use aggression quite effectively. People that do not rely on this skill rarely get into fights and therefore the opportunity to see role models in action is few and far between. This can leave us wrongly thinking that fighting like an animal and displaying open aggression is the only way.

What ever the style it needs to help the student address some very basic issues in their own psyci. Some styles will use exercise and repetitive kata to either weed out the less suitable students or to help them improve themselves. Others like the Russian System also use an oral tradition of well focused observations by the teacher to cause thought and reflection on our very makeup.

It is unfortunate that in todays climate if it does not look like cage rage or UFC most people do not think the martial art is effective. For a traditional style that has been used throughout it's history in combat to survive it has to have been effective for the people that developed it. Also the training drills it advocates must have some bearing on developing a person that can use those skills in life. We have to remember that life is more than a set of fights. This is even the case for the most proffessional of soldiers who have families to go home to.

Unfortunately during times of peace the skills taught in a style can become watered down or altered by new ideas that as yet are untested. The next question then is do you goto a style that have tried and tested drills to fill the gaps in your knowledge or do you start making up your own solutions and develop your own modern martial art?

If you decided that the modern martial art is what you want to practice remember that they often are not designed for real confrontations or they are untested by either the founder or the person taking the class. I went to one class where they taught several kata from a chinese boxing style. When I asked the instructor (who was also the founder of the style) what the movements were for he had to admit that he did not really know.

One of the Gracie brothers taught a course several years ago in the UK. When asked about fighting against multiple or armed opponents he had to admit that his style was developed for the octagon and not those sort of encounters. Not every instructor is so honest to their audience.

Another problem is that the skills become outdated. An example of this would be learning to use a naginata against a swordsman in armour. If self defence is your goal you have to ask yourself will the core principles behind the kata teach you anything useful (eg. timing, distance ect.) If the answer is no and you do not expect to be attacked by an extra from the last samurai it is probably not the best use of your time.

Martial arts practice always effects the way you live your life. For anyone who has more than a passing contact with them they start to effect the very way you think. The problem is if your training concentrates on aggression (as most modern styles seem to) it will start to bleed into the rest of your life. Do you want to walk around waiting for some one to jump out from every corner or for you to become aggressive in any situation that has an element of confrontation?

Paul Genge
http://www.russianmartialart.org.uk

 

[bignick]

i would argue that traits like discipline are combat applicable...you're not going to break somebody's arm with you discipline...but learning how to continue on and react under pressure while keeping your cool are great advantages to have in a real situation...

they may not directly teach you how to protect yourself...but they're very important in my opinion

 

[RHD]

I would have to agree with you to a certain extent, I do believe hat traditional Martial Arts were mostly combat driven. Not only were the Martial Arts very disciplened every day life was disciplined in the East. They new that eventually they would get the meaning of kata in there training, and also they knew they were doing everything for a reason. I think that if we wish to get out of this "I want it now attitude" than we as parents need to start with our children, and make discipline a everyday part of life.

I think it's important to realize that new students walking into your school already have a sense of morality, some sort of philosophy, and are either capable of self discipline or not. They may emulate their instructors, but this may only be for the duration of the class. This is why I do not try to teach these things.

I have found that the overwhelming majority of individuals who've appraoched me for lessons are interested in what I tell them that I teach... Which is: self defense, fighting skill, and traditional training methods to obtain those. Anything else they get from training is a bonus, and not necessarily the focus of the training. Granted, I do not teach martial arts for a living, and I am able to screen my students fairly well. I also reserve the responsibilty to pull the plug on anyone's training if they are anything less than an attentive student with a good attitude. I can only imagine the hazards of teaching for a living and having to see every person who walked in the door as a potential $$.

Mike

 

[Tgace]

I would only say its bad IF it "trains in" techniques that will get you hurt on the street. You will do as you train so you should be careful what you program yourself to do.

 

[Touch Of Death]

I really agree with what you're saying.Although I would say that most traditional arts were originaly intended to be combat efective, but after many generations of peace the focus was shifted toward self development.
Unfortunately alot of people dont realise this and think they are practising realistic fighting techniques.
I think the rise of modern combat systems was inevitable and necessary due to the lack of realism in alot of the traditional arts.
Personally I try to keep a balance of both combat effectiveness and self development.I think those who practise MA simply for the purpose of learning how to fight are missing out on the true value of training.And instructors who teach dangerous combative techniques to their students without the essential character development of traditional Budo, should be prepared to take responsibility if one of their students was to use their skills in an irresponsible mannor.
At the same time I dont see the point in practising fighting techniques that aren't fighting effective.I'm thankfull for the rise of MMA, as I think it has exposed alot of the weaknesses in many MA's and brought back some much needed reality into the picture.
Unfortunately alot of dojos I've seen seem to go one way or the other.Either very traditional and lacking in effectiveness, or totally combat oriented with no spiritual depth.Its sad that many young people here in Japan are more attracted to the fighting sport dojos and forgeting the wisdom of Bushido.
One without the other is incomplete.
So I guess my answer to your question is yes and no.Fighting techniques need to be effective and practised how they are intended to be used.But not everything you do in your training has to be for the purpose of fighting.

Without a practicle application, your money would be better spent at a finishing school.
Sean

 

[RRouuselot]

I would have to agree with you to a certain extent, 1)I do believe hat traditional Martial Arts were mostly combat driven. 2)Not only were the Martial Arts very disciplened every day life was disciplined in the East. 3)They new that eventually they would get the meaning of kata in there training, and also they knew they were doing everything for a reason. I think that if we wish to get out of this "I want it now attitude" than we as parents need to start with our children, and make discipline a everyday part of life.

1) WOW! Really??? Imagine that ....martial arts being combat driven.

What made you think that??



2) Just curious what you are basing this idea on.



3) This is actually untrue. During times of civil strife and war it was thought that people were taught applications only and then during times of peace some people “codified” these applications to form kata so that they would be easy to remember and keep to pass down or teach. Many techniques that actually worked were developed only after surviving and studying events that happened in battle.

 

[ppko]

1) WOW! Really??? Imagine that ....martial arts being combat driven.

What made you think that??



2) Just curious what you are basing this idea on.



3) This is actually untrue. During times of civil strife and war it was thought that people were taught applications only and then during times of peace some people “codified” these applications to form kata so that they would be easy to remember and keep to pass down or teach. Many techniques that actually worked were developed only after surviving and studying events that happened in battle.

Just from what I have heard or read
Thank you for correcting me as I do not know everything only what I have heard or read

 

[8253]

When training one must learn discipline in order to properly learn how to be combat effective. For instance when bowing in or out of the place of learning, even if you dont want to, you are learning discipline every time that it is done. The same goes for calling the instructor sir or maam. These may not seem like major things, but things like these also apply to a combat situation. When these small things become habit, then the discipline will be secton nature. In a combat situation, if you are injured during a fight, it is this type of discipline that will help you to survive the physical altercation. If an un-disciplined person in a fight is injured they will lay down or make about a half an attempt to escape. However a disciplined person will either fight through an injury or escape. I am not saying Traditional is better than modern, traditional is my preference however. In any sense, they are both combat effective. It just depends on the person learning it. Nothing will ever suit two people anyways.

 

[Marginal]

Traditional martial arts were not so much about fighting as some of the other more modern styles are. Some people today are just looking for combat effectiveness only, not discipline, values, and a good attitude. Those are the things that traditional training gives you, people who just want to learn how to hurt people frown on the more traditional type of training because there are things done to build character and discipline, that are not combat applicable, so they feel those things are a waste of time.

The Jouranl of Asian Martial Arts has an article on this topic in the most recent issue.

 

[ppko]

I think it's important to realize that new students walking into your school already have a sense of morality, some sort of philosophy, and are either capable of self discipline or not. They may emulate their instructors, but this may only be for the duration of the class. This is why I do not try to teach these things.

I have found that the overwhelming majority of individuals who've appraoched me for lessons are interested in what I tell them that I teach... Which is: self defense, fighting skill, and traditional training methods to obtain those. Anything else they get from training is a bonus, and not necessarily the focus of the training. Granted, I do not teach martial arts for a living, and I am able to screen my students fairly well. I also reserve the responsibilty to pull the plug on anyone's training if they are anything less than an attentive student with a good attitude. I can only imagine the hazards of teaching for a living and having to see every person who walked in the door as a potential $$.

Mike

Very good post

 

[Andrew Green]

No, of course everything doesn't have to be applicable to fighting.

BUT, the problem is that many people that are teaching things that are not at all applicable, and could in fact get you hurt, are selling it as, and convincing there students that it is this ultimate self-defence system too deadly for competition...

And just too add something, modern systems can build character too (And too be honest, they can do it better IMO)

Everyone has different interests and different goals, not everyone is looking for the same things. The problems start when people market what they do as something it isn't.

Not just practiaclliity, but the character building as well. I'm sure everyone else here has come across schools that push the "character development" card real hard in there marketing. Then you see them at competitions and fall witness to sportsmanship displays that would make pro-wrestlers blush...

 

[Mark Weiser]

Speaking from experience from both Military and Civilian LEO and 23 years of being in the MA's

Most Martial Arts teaches the basics that one needs to make the mind and body ready for Combat. However most fights last about 10 - 15 seconds in a very violent confrontation. This is the great problem in MA. Most do not train you to become aggressive and mame and kill in these types of confrontations.

That is problem that many had with the Marine Corps Hand to Hand Course that I attended. Those with Martial Arts Training always reverted back to Kata Movments while the Instructors kicked their little behinds. The Instructors explained the KISS principle in Hand to Hand. Fast and Simple Strikes to vital areas are more effective than any Katas you may have learned. Combat Mindset is not taught in Martial Art Schools. They then went over the most common Strikes and Takedowns to use in Combat. Very Enlightening.

Martial Arts as taught today is not combat related in most cases.

 

[Andrew Green]

But there is also a big difference between battlefield hand to hand and self-defence.

Sometimes you really don't want to hurt, let alone cripple or kill the other guy. Another thing many SD instructors forget.

 

[KenpoNoChikara]

I really agree with what you're saying.Although I would say that most traditional arts were originaly intended to be combat efective, but after many generations of peace the focus was shifted toward self development.
Unfortunately alot of people dont realise this and think they are practising realistic fighting techniques.
I think the rise of modern combat systems was inevitable and necessary due to the lack of realism in alot of the traditional arts.
Personally I try to keep a balance of both combat effectiveness and self development.I think those who practise MA simply for the purpose of learning how to fight are missing out on the true value of training.And instructors who teach dangerous combative techniques to their students without the essential character development of traditional Budo, should be prepared to take responsibility if one of their students was to use their skills in an irresponsible mannor.
At the same time I dont see the point in practising fighting techniques that aren't fighting effective.I'm thankfull for the rise of MMA, as I think it has exposed alot of the weaknesses in many MA's and brought back some much needed reality into the picture.
Unfortunately alot of dojos I've seen seem to go one way or the other.Either very traditional and lacking in effectiveness, or totally combat oriented with no spiritual depth.Its sad that many young people here in Japan are more attracted to the fighting sport dojos and forgeting the wisdom of Bushido.
One without the other is incomplete.
So I guess my answer to your question is yes and no.Fighting techniques need to be effective and practised how they are intended to be used.But not everything you do in your training has to be for the purpose of fighting.

Coulden't agree more

 

[ppko]

No, of course everything doesn't have to be applicable to fighting.

BUT, the problem is that many people that are teaching things that are not at all applicable, and could in fact get you hurt, are selling it as, and convincing there students that it is this ultimate self-defence system too deadly for competition...

And just too add something, modern systems can build character too (And too be honest, they can do it better IMO)

Everyone has different interests and different goals, not everyone is looking for the same things. The problems start when people market what they do as something it isn't.

Not just practiaclliity, but the character building as well. I'm sure everyone else here has come across schools that push the "character development" card real hard in there marketing. Then you see them at competitions and fall witness to sportsmanship displays that would make pro-wrestlers blush...

A very good post, but let me say a few things. IMO you do not have to compete to have a practical system, but you do have to have a training regimen that is realistic.

 

[loki09789]

But there is also a big difference between battlefield hand to hand and self-defence.

Sometimes you really don't want to hurt, let alone cripple or kill the other guy. Another thing many SD instructors forget.

Not necessarily a 'big difference' in what you do so much as how far you go and what 'rules' you are expected to know and be able to stay within.

Same motions, different "intent"

That is why I don't really agree that 'not everything' has to have a 'combat' application.

Whether it is the focus you develop during a very ritualistic, uniformed 'traditional' program or a more relaxed "self Defense" program, the point is that you are replicating, developing and enhancing the skills and abilities (though not necessarily a totally comprehensive list) that should increase your ability to cope with life and death stress.

"Grace under fire" is the saying that explains what any martial arts training should ultimately enstill. The ability to keep your head screwed on straight while those about you might be losing yours.

Preparing you for 'stress management' to an intense level of preparation more so than just combat. That's why martial arts programs as part of sport summer camp or pre-season 'boot camp's' seem to be so popular IMO.

 

[OC Kid]

I didnt read what everyone wrote so I dont know if this was mentioned or not but. Martial Art means War art or Art of War. Bushido means way of the warrior.